08/02/2017 House of Commons

Good morning, welcome to BBC Parliament's live coverage of the

Commons. It half an hour, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will do battle

over the dispatch box at the latest Prime Minister's Question Time. MPs

will then move onto another day of discussion on the details of the

European Union notification of withdrawal bill, alleges lacing that

authorises ministers to trigger the all-important Article 50 starting

Britain's divorce from the EU, the bill will reach its final stage of

Commons debate this evening called the third reading at around 6pm.

Don't forget to join me for the best of the day in both Houses of

Parliament at 11 tonight, first, questions to the Cabinet Office

Minister, Ben, full of second reading. -- Ben Gummer. Wednesday,

22nd of February, thank you. Although, questions to the Minister

and... INAUDIBLE Neil Parish...

Minor likeness, I beg your pardon! LAUGHTER

The government published its review to the response of electoral fraud,

on the 27th of December, the response clearly sets out the action

that the government intends to take out on each recommendation and

proposes a conference programme for reforming the electoral system and

making democracy more secure. My apologies to the both of you, I'm

not sure who is more offended(!) LAUGHTER

In December, 2008, I was an election observer in Bangladesh, because of

previous voter fraud, they photographed 80 million people, and

it was clearly identifiable when people went to vote map so has the

government considered this, because in a democracy we need as many

people devote as possible but we don't want theft of identity when

people vote? A very good point made around international comparisons,

many countries across the world including Canada, Brazil, Austria,

that already have photographic ID when it comes to pulling stations

including in Northern Ireland, introduced if 2003. The government

is taking forward pilots in looking forward at electoral identification,

this will take place in local government elections of 2018, we

will test various forms of identification, photographic ID,

non-photographic ID, to make sure no one is disenfranchised. The

government talk of voter fraud is a smoke screen for voter suppression.

Macro Barack they are putting obstacles between

people and the voting booth, instead of boosting democracy. If it is such

a problem, can the Minister report family convictions there have been

four voter fraud last year? I'm surprised the honourable gentleman

for somehow claiming this was a smoke screen, it was a Labour

government which introduced photographic ID in Northern Ireland

in 2003, the electoral commission and all other administrators have

called for ID in polling stations, when it comes to looking at IDE, we

will test this vigorously when it comes to pilots and when it comes to

convictions, 481 cases of voter fraud reported to the election

commission and 184 additional cases reported to the police. -- when it

comes to looking at ID. 30% of the population believe there is an issue

with voter fraud when it comes to their local area and it is

perception we are looking to tackle. The number of organisations that the

Minister has just quoted, plus the organisation for Security and

Corporation in Europe warned us that are a voting system is particularly

vulnerable to identity theft. Given that all those countries that the

Minister said, there is no evidence of any voter suppression, do you

think, does the Minister think that those who seek to use these

conspiracy theories are in grave risk of becoming apologists for

electoral fraud? We are determined to ensure that we have a clear and

secure democracy, that voters can have confidence in that system. As a

government we have 46.5 million people on the electoral register,

Turner increasing to 30.8 million in 2015, we are determined to ensure

that we have voter participation but it is right that if there is a

public perception that fraud is an issue, perceptions can be as

damaging as cases of fraud itself. Has the Minister made any equality

impact assessment on recommendations which would ban the use of any

language other than English or Welsh in pulling stations? When it comes

to the package of measures that we reported back on Sir Eric's report,

looking at the issue of language is an important one, it is important

that when comes to electoral administrators doing their job and

being confident that no one is put under it and you pressure when it

comes to voting, that we look at the question of language. When it comes

to government announcements, they will be thorough and analysed

correctly and we will go through due process to make sure impact

assessments are correctly cooperated with. Number two, Mr Speaker. With

your permission, I shall answer this question, and question three and

five together. In response to the review of electoral fraud by my

right honourable friend, we outline the intention to run a number of

pilot schemes, at a number of local authority areas in 2018, the purpose

of this is to test the impact on elections of asking collectors to

present identification. Would my friend agree with me that voting is

one of the most important duties of a citizen, and introducing proof of

ID would bring voting into line with other everyday transactions like

buying a mortgage or renting a car? I agree with my honourable friend,

when it comes to voting there cannot be a important transaction that you

can make over five years the two elected your counsellor or MP, it is

right that that process is respected. -- -- than to elect.

Turning up and claiming your name as your identity, does not happen

anywhere else and it is time to bring democracy up-to-date. Voter

fraud is unacceptable and I welcome any measure to secure democracy.

Swindon borough council has repeatedly been commended for good

election practice, with the Minister consider us for future pilots? I

would like to thank my honourable friend for his question, we have a

great deal of interest from local authorities in the pilot process, at

the moment we are conducting a review to decide exactly what the

form most pilots will take, some will be photographic ID, some will

be non-photographic ID, at the same time we are determined to ensure

that interested local authorities can come forward in due time to

participate. I addressed the Association of electoral

administrators at their annual conference on Friday in Brighton,

and 40% supported introducing ID in polling stations. My honourable

friend is absolutely right, this is common practice in many

sophisticated democracies around the world, what best practice has the

government been taking on those other countries? One double friend

is entirely right, by introducing pilot schemes we will provide

invaluable learning for strengthening the electoral system

but we also want to learn from international comparisons such as

canister, Austria and Brazil which require voter identification. Voters

in Northern Ireland, as stated, have had to present identification since

1985 and photographic since 2003, further information is available on

the report, and we will consider these international comparisons

going forward. Thank you Mr Speaker, the government is deluding itself if

it thinks that impersonation is the main challenge to the integrity of

the democratic system, in fact, a main challenge to its integrity and

credibility is the fact that millions of our fellow citizens who

are entitled to vote do not do so, would the government not be better

to spend time and money on pilot projects designed to increase

participation such as a radical overhaul of how we teach democratic

rights in schools, pursuing online voting, and most of all, automatic

voter registration, so that the ability to vote is not something you

have to apply for. I'm grateful for him to raise that point, we have a

record 46.5 million people now on the electoral register, Turner at

elections is at a record level, what we can and must do more. The idea of

a Clare and -- the idea of a clear democracy is important. INAUDIBLE

I will be setting out the democratic engagement strategy later in the

spring, which will set out further pilots. INAUDIBLE

Will the Minister give the assurance that the issue of postal vote

applications and proxy vote applications which also can be the

subject can be kept under review in terms of identification of the

accurate person who is supposed to be applying for the postal vote? I'm

very grateful for that point being raised, when we publish the response

to Eric Pickles's report, the top line was ID in polling stations but

there are an entire package of measures that include looking again

at postal vote fraud, and banning harvesting of personal votes by

political parties and eliminating the number of postal vote packs that

can be handled by family members down to two. The electoral

commission tells us 3.5 million genuine legitimate electors do not

have valid pieces of photo identification which would be

required in the trials and they risk being denied their votes. The motion

was recently asked opposing the trial in Kendal, Burnley are

considering a similar motion, when will the Minister abandoned his

Republican party's playbook on voter suppression and listen to the

sensible voice of the good folk of Lancashire? The honourable lady

mentions the electoral commission, what she omitted to say was that

they have stated the full and considered response from the

government and the announcement of the intention to pilot measures, the

election commission are in favour of introducing photographic ID when it

comes to elections, what we have said, when it comes to the pilots,

we want evidence -based policy making, that is why we will have

pilots that look at photographic ID, and non-photographic ID, but let me

say, when it comes to ensuring people will be able to vote I will

not be denying anybody that franchise we are protecting

communities that are most vulnerable from actually casting their vote in

a secret ballot. We must protect against and you've implements. I'm

surprised she does not take this seriously. -- we must protect

against undue. INAUDIBLE It is perfectly legal for local

authorities to be able to set their own procurement rules, taking into

account additional factors such as human rights record and

environmental impact? Local authorities must comply with

European Union law, they are enshrined in the public contracts.

Would my right honourable friend Tommy Hamid a people he has in his

departmental staff that run a small businesses and can understand small

businesses when they seek to procure public-sector contracts and against

bureaucracy? My team of two comprises of one person who has run

several small businesses and one who is a sole trader. That is 100%

fulfilment on his request. We also have a small enterprise ambassador

who worked at the council to make sure we are doing exactly as he

wishes. Before he quit a friend of mine empowered Waitrose managers...

I'm not blaming him! Empowered Waitrose managers to go out and

procure local products. Cover not give similar encouragement to bodies

like county and district councils? I commend everything that the

honourable gentleman's and has done. I know he will bring that expertise

in due course to the people of the West Midlands. What I will say is

that although councils and public bodies cannot choose according to

geographical criteria, what they can and must do is take into account the

social value of the procurement policies and that is why there is

latitude for them to have similar approaches to the one that his

friend conducted at Waitrose. Ministers have talked a great deal

about linking apprenticeships to public procurement contracts, a

sensible use of public funds to meet both the schools agenda. The

commission confirmed last week that only 10% of new apprenticeships are

taken from those from low-income families. Given the Cabinet Office's

unique place to promote this agenda, what is the minister doing to tackle

this unacceptable situation? The honourable gentleman raises are just

point. The whole point behind the apprenticeship programme is to give

opportunities to people who would not otherwise have them. That is why

the 3 million target we have is important. The public sector will

contribute a significant proportion. I'm responsible for the civil

service component of that which is successful. We've launched the

standards that will surround some of the civil service apprenticeships

and a hope in time we will fulfil Philby aspiration we both had that

it will help social mobility. The government has identified

photographic and non-photographic identification that will test ID on

all aspects of election, including turnout. I know the electoral

commission on the report in Northern Ireland said that less than 1% of

voters were affected by photo ID. That is why we want to look at both

to make sure there is no disenfranchisement taking place in

our pilot. The Electoral Commission reported in 2016 that 3.5 electors

will have no appropriate form of photo IDs. Why is it that the

government is ignoring recommendations to have a voluntary

voter card which would allow those 2.5 million people to vote? The

honourable gentleman is a fine historian. Like me he believes in

looking at evidence -based policy making, which is why we have

constructed the pilots to make sure there is photographic and

non-photographic identification. If there is anyone who has no form of

identification, we will make provisions for them. When it comes

to the electoral ID card rolling out across the country, it will be

expensive and we have no plans to do so. Workforce planning is primarily

the responsibility of each individual department, but in answer

to her specific question, civil service headcount reduced by 303,090

-- 3390. Will he publish the assessment regarding Brexit and the

work streams that have been cut. We have worked since July to make sure

we have the proper resources in place to make sure our exit from the

European Union is done effectively and efficiently. Departmental plans

will have the kind of outline she is seeking. As my honourable friend

continues to modernise the civil service headcount, will he make sure

that apprenticeships will lead towards a more diverse workforce to

serve our communities? I will assure my honourable friend precisely that.

My predecessor started a programme of understanding better the social

and economic make-up of the civil service and we will make sure that

there is more social equality and diversity in our civil service.

We are seeking to find savings of ?15 billion by 2020. We have

achieved the 3p in the last year. As a councillor I have seen how the

commissioning of services from one provider by different public sector

bodies can drive down costs, providing high-quality services at

lower costs. Are there lessons to be learnt from all sectors of

government and this programme is evidence that the public sector can

deliver more for less. He is right to point out the Cabinet programme,

but many of the lessons we can learn is from local government and others

in terms of sharing services and cutting costs. Will he ensure that

the public services can share data because that will provide

efficiency? There is a bill passing through the house that will do just

that. We are committed to improving public services with

advanced technology. We are doing server using tools such as verified.

I would liken to reassure the house and the government that he is doing

everything he can to make sure that people can access public services

online, particularly for those hard to reach groups, like in my rural

constituencies. By ensuring we have good broadband

connections are my honourable friend's constituency, we will make

sure they can access the information online. The Cabinet Office is the

centre of government. The department is responsible for delivering a

democracy that works for everyone. We are also driving efficiencies to

make government work better. Can the Minister provides an update on any

progress with the PM's order to tackle racial disparities, given so

much is already known about these disparities. Should not then the

government be getting on with doing the great -- a great deal more about

them now rather than waiting for an audit. I find that a surprising

thing from the honourable lady. It was this government and this Prime

Minister that commissioned the racial disparity audit. Her party

when in power have 13 years to do it and did not. I'm proud of what the

Prime Minister has done, we will be publishing the audit within the next

three months and she will be excited by the possibilities of making

things better in this country. Safe tech engineering offers security for

cyber issues. They need to be licensed by another list company of

the MoD. Will businesses be able to access the markets they need? I have

a responsibility for small and medium enterprises and I will take

forward his concern to make sure they are represented. Since 2010 the

has been more than 100,000 civil service jobs gone. The 300 new

recruits for the Brexit department, is the Minister really, really

serious that the UK are properly prepared to enter the most complex

negotiations for generations? The reality is it is an absolute

shambles. I am fully confident and I am fully confident that the civil

service and the marvellous people who... Last week I met with the

Sussex Police to discuss issues including electoral fraud. What

steps are being taken to make sure that the government are involved

with the returning officers. Last Friday I addressed a conference of

the National police chiefs and electoral commission setting out why

things need to be done. There have been cases in the past were

convictions have not been followed through. It is wrong and I hope that

changes in the future. One of the government publish departmental

performance regarding its commitment to deliver ever higher levels of UK

steel content in procurement policy? My honourable friend knows it was

this government that established a far more rigorous understanding of

how still content was in public procurement policy. I will update

him on the progress we are making. I applaud the government's efforts to

give more contracts to small and medium-size enterprises and the use

of technologies such as their websites. How many businesses are

signed up to this website and how can I get more businesses in Wisbech

to sign up? As of yesterday there were 15,007 job and 45 businesses

signed up. -- 15700 and 45. It is easy to sign up and the best he can

do is to tell them to do so. Will the Minister enhance strength in the

Northern Powerhouse to make sure it you'll sure SMEs can take advantage

of public procurement contracts? In the methods I have been describing

today, I shall. Will my right honourable friend accept that when

we are told that it's good to talk, government departments are making it

infinitely more difficult for members to contact private offices

on behalf of their constituents because of the inaccuracies and the

withdrawal of the central register of private office numbers? Can the

Minister tell us when the practice of putting the communal number in

the register will be stopped and the individual numbers of ministers

private offices are stored as it was so began a public communication

between ministers officers and members on behalf of other

constituents? Mr Speaker, I own members an apology for this. If it

is true that some of the telephone numbers in the directory were both

inaccurate and some were general numbers. The revision is being made

quarterly. The next one is in March and I have instructed all

departments to provide private office numbers as members rightly

expect. Order. Questions to be Prime Minister. Mr Toby Perkins.

In addition to my duties I shall have further such meetings today Mr

Speaker, the Government chose to launch the pupil premium at a school

in Chesterfield where 70% of people receive free school meals. The

headteacher, Dave Shaw was running the Great North Run for a cancer

charity. However, her new schools' funding formula means that the

junior school now face the biggest cuts in all of Derbyshire. Running

for cash is now the only alternative to sacking staff. Will she go to the

finish line and tell Dave Shaw how this is a fairer funding formula?

Well, I'm pleased to say that in the local authority that covers the

honourable gentleman's constituency, we have seen an increase of over

17,000 children at good or outstanding schools since 2010.

That's down to Government changes and the hard work of teaches and

other staff in the schools. For a very long time, it has been the

general view - and I have campaigned on this for a long time - that

actually we need to see a fair funding formula for schools. What

Government has brought forward is a consultation on a fairer funding

formula. We look at the results of that fairer funding formula and will

bring forward our firm proposals in due course.

Over the course of the last 12 months, as part of the Defence

Select Committee, I have' had the opportunity to look into the

historic Iraq team and how we as a country deal with more historical

allegations for our servicemen and women, not only for us who serve but

for many members across this House it has been a deeply disturbing

experience. I know the Prime Minister gets it but will she double

her and her Government's commitments to get a grip on this historical

process, so that never again, will our servicemen and women be

exposed... I'm sure the whole House will want to join me in praising the

bravery and commitment of all those who Seb in our Armed Forces. I would

like to thank my honourable friend for the work he is doing on the

Defence Committee because of course he brings personal expertise to that

work. Those who serve on the front line deserve our support when they

get home. I can assure my honourable friend of the Government's

commitment to that. All troops facing allegations receive Legal Aid

from the Government, with the guarantee that this will not be

claimed back. In relation to the issue he has referred to, we are

committed to reducing its case load to a small number of credible cases

as quickly as possible and I recognise the action that has been

taken in relation to the individuals he has referred to, I think it is

absolutely appalling when people try to make a business out of chasing

after our brave troops. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, nine out of ten NHS Trusts say their hospitals have been

at unsafe levels of overcrowding. One in six Accident Emergency

units in England are set to be closed or downgraded. Could the

Prime Minister please explain how closing A departments will tackle

overcrowding and ever-growing waiting lists? First of all, can I

extend my thanks and I'm sure that of the whole House to the

hard-working staff in the NHS who do a great job, day-in and day-out,

treating patients. Yes we recognise there are heavy priors on the NHS.

That's -- pressures on the NHS. That's why, this year we are funding

the NHS at 1.3 billion pounds more than the Labour Party promised at

the last election. He refers specifically to Accident

Emergency. What is your response in Accident Emergency? We see 600

more A consultants. 1,500 more A doctors and 2,000 more paramedics.

It's not about standing up and making a sound bite and asking a

question, it is about delivering results and that's what this

Conservative Government is doing. Mr Speaker, congratulating A staff is

one thing, paying them properly is another. I hope she managed to see

the BBC reports on the royal Blackburn A department which

showed that pep had to wait up to 13 hours and 52 minutes to be seen.

Shocking. A major cause of the pressure on A is the 4.6 billion

cut in the social care budget since 2010. Shocking. Earlier this week,

Liverpool's very esteemed adult social care director resigned

saying, "Frankly, I can't see social services surviving after two years".

"That's the maximum." People are suffering and we are really only

seeing the tip of the iceberg. Mr Speaker, what advice does the

Government have to the people of Liverpool in this situation?

SHOUTING THE SPEAKER: Order, order. It is bad

enough that when members who are within the curt ledge of the chamber

shout. Those who are not, absolutely should not do so. It is a

discourtesy to the House of Commons. Nothing more, nothing less. Please

don't do it. The Prime Minister. Well, he refers

at an early stage in his question to Blackburn oo. Imehappy to say

compared to 2010 there are more hospital doctors and more nurses in

the Blackburn East Lang kashire Hospital's NHS Trust. He went on to

talk about waiting times and waiting times can be an issue. Where is it

that you wait a week longer for pneumonia treatment? That you wait a

week longer for heart disease treatment? That you wait seven weeks

longer for cataract treatment? 11 weeks longer for hernia treatment

and 21 weeks longer for a hip operation? It's not in England, it's

in Wales. Who is in power in Wales? Labour. Mr Speaker, my question was

about the comments from the director of social care in Liverpool and why

the people of Liverpool are having to suffer these great cuts.

Liverpool has asked to meet the Government on four occasions. The

crisis is so bad that until yesterday, Mr Speaker, David Hodge,

the Conservative leader of Surrey County Council, planned to hold a

referendum for a 15% increase in council tax. And at the last minute

it was called off. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether or

not a special deal was done for Surrey? The decision as to whether

or not to hold a referendum in Surrey is entirely a matter for the

local authority in Surrey. In Surrey County Council. The right honourable

gentleman has raised the issue of social care, which we've exchanged

on across this Despatch Box before and as I've said before, we do need

to find a long-term sustainable solution for social care in this

country. So I recognise the short-term pressures. That's why we

have enabled local authorities to put more money into social care. We

have provided more money over the next two years, ?900 million more

will be available for social care. But we also need to look at ensuring

that good practice is spread across the whole of the country. We can

look at places like Barnsley, North Tyneside, St Helen's, Rutland,

towards the end of last year, no delayed discharges attributed to

social care in those councils. We need to look long-term and that's

why the Cabinet is driving a review w the relevant department, to find a

sustainable solution, which the Labour Party ducked for far too

long. My question was, whether there had been a special deal done for

Surrey. The #4r50eder said they had many conversations with the

Government. We know they have because I've been leaked copies of

text be send by by the Tory leader intended to somebody called Nick who

works for ministers in the Department for Communities and Local

Government and this text reads "I'm advised that DCLG officials have

been working on a solution and that you will be contacted me to agree a

memorandum of understanding." Ah. Will the Government now publish this

memorandum of understanding and while they are about it, will all

councils be offered the same deal? What we have given all councils is

the opportunity to raise a 3% precept on the council tax for that

go to go into social care. He talks about understanding. What the Labour

Party fails to understand... THE SPEAKER: Order. There is far too

much noise. Mr Pound calm yourself, you are supposed to be a senior

statesman. Order. And Mr Rotherham, you should

reserve your shouting for the stands at Anfield. Prime Minister.

As I say, all councils have the opportunity to raise the 3% precept

to put that funding into the provision of social care. What the

Labour Party fails to understand is that this is not just a question of

looking at money, it is a question of looking at spreading best

practice and finding a sustainable solution. And I have to say to him,

that if we look at social care provision across the entire country,

the last thing social care providers need is another one of Labour's

bouncing cheques. Mrnchts speaker, I wonder if it is

anything to do with the fact that the Chancellor and Health Secretary

both represent Surrey constituencies? Mr Speakerers there

was a second text from Surrey County Council leader to Nick and in the

second text it says "The numbers you indicated are the numbers that I

understand are acceptable for me to accept and call off the R." Now I've

been reading a bit of John Le Carre, and apparently R means, referendum.

It's very subtle, all this. He goes on to say in his text to

Nick "If it is possible for that info to be sent to myself, I can

then revert back soonest. Really want to kill this off." So, how much

did the Government offer Surrey to kill this off? And is the same

sweetheart deal on offer to every council facing the social care

crisis, created by her Government? I've made clear to the right

honourable gentleman what has been made available to every council,

which is the ability to raise the precept. And I have to say to him...

THE SPEAKER: Order. As colleagues know, I never mind how long Prime

Minister's Questions takes. The questions must be heard and the

answers must be heard. The Prime Minister. I have to say to

him, he comes to the despatch broks making all sorts of claims. Yet

again what we get from Labour are alternative facts. -- Despatch Box.

What they really need is an alternative leader.

Mr Speaker, my question was - what deal has been offered to Surrey that

got them to call off a referendum and will the same deal be offered to

every other council going through a social care crisis? Mr Speaker,

hospital wards are overcrowded. 1 million people aren't getting the

care they need. And family members, mostly women, are having to give up

work to care for loved ones. Every day that the Prime Minister fails to

act, this crisis gets worse. So will she, finally, come clean and provide

local authorities with the funding they need to fund social care

properly, so that our often elderly and vulnerable people can be treated

with the support and dignity that they deserve in a civilised society?

The deal that is on offer to all councils is the one I have already

set out. Let me just be very clear with the right honourable gentleman,

because as ever, he stands up and consistently asks for more spending.

More money, more funding. What he always fails to recognise, what he

fails to recognise is that you can only spend money on social care and

on the National Health Service if off strong economy to deliver the

wealth that you need. There is a fundamental difference between us.

When I... THE SPEAKER: Order. I'm sorry there is still too much noise

in the chamber. People observing our proceedings here and on the outside

what the questions heard and the answers heard and they will be.

Prime Minister. There is a difference between us,

when I talk about half a trillion pounds, that's the money we will be

spending on the NHS this Parliament. When Labour talk about half a

trillion pounds, tss the money they want to borrow. Conservatives

investing in the NHS, Labour bankrupting Britain.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, there are significant challenges facing this

great nafgs ours, Prime Minister, one of which is tackling mental

health, particularly for young people. The pressures of juggling

school life, family life and staying safe and feeling valued online are

more difficult than ever, would the Prime Minister agree to meet with me

and my team to discuss the Mental Health Act that we have been working

on and developing, an app to give young people a tool box to help them

in the times of crisis? I am interested to hear of this.

Mental health is an area where we do need to put more of a focus and make

progress. I am pleased to say that something like 1400 more people are

accessing mental health services every day. But more needs to be

done. We are putting ?68 million into improving mental health care

through digital innovation, which sounds as if it fits right into what

my honourable friend is looking at. There will be a particular focus on

that with children and young people's mental health in mind. He

might want to look out for the Department of Health and the

Department for Education joint green paper that they will publish in

October. Angus Robertson. Last night, parliamentarians from across

the chamber and across the parties voted overwhelmingly against the UK

Government's Brexit plans in the Scottish Parliament. If the United

Kingdom is a partnership of equals, will the Prime Minister compromise

like the Scottish Government and reach a negotiated agreement before

invoking Article 50, or will she just carry on regardless? As the

right honourable gentleman knows, when the UK Government negotiates,

it will be negotiating as the government for the whole of the

United Kingdom. We have put in place the JNC arrangements through various

committees which enable us to work closely with the devolved

administrations identify the particular issues that they want to

see represented as we put our views together. We have said we will

intensify the discussions within that arrangement and that is what

we'll do. Angus Robertson. When the Prime Minister was in Edinburgh on

the 15th of July last year, she pledged that she would "Not trigger

article 50 until she had an agreed UK-wide approach. So given that the

Scottish Parliament has voted overwhelmingly against her approach,

and all bar one MP representing a Scottish constituency in this House

of Commons has voted against her approach, she does not have an

agreed UK-wide approach. As the Prime Minister knows, a lot of

people in Scotland watch Prime Minister's Questions. So will she

tell those viewers in Scotland when she intends to keep her word to

Scotland or not? We are ensuring that we are working with the

Scottish Government and the other devolved administrations as we take

this matter forward. I would just remind the right honourable

gentleman of two things. First of all, the Supreme Court was clear

that the Scottish parliament does not have a veto on the triggering of

article 50. The bill that is going through the House is obviously

giving the power to the government to trigger article 50. I would also

remind him of this point, because he constantly refers to the interests

of Scotland inside the European Union. An independent Scotland would

not be in the European Union. Mr Speaker, the people of Rossendale

and Darwen warmly welcome Government's housing White Paper.

Will my right honourable friend confirm that when it comes to

providing more security for renters, building more affordable homes and

helping people buy their own home, it is this party, the Conservative

Party, that is fixing our broken housing market? Am happy to agree

with my honourable friend. Our broken housing market is one of the

greatest barriers to progress in Britain today and the housing White

Paper brought out by my right honourable friend II for communities

and local government sets out the steps we will take to fix it and my

honourable friend is right. It is the Conservatives who are going to

support local authorities to deliver more of the right homes in the right

places to encourage faster build-up of developments. I'm sure everybody

recognised the problem of planning permission that are given and then

not built out, and create the conditions for a more competitive

and diverse housing market. We are setting out the response abilities

of all parties in building the homes that Britain needs. Does the Prime

Minister agree that in a 21st century parliament, the rules should

not able any member to speak for longer than 58 minutes in a

three-hour debate? Does she agree that the rules of the House should

be changed to prevent filibustering and French other members from all

sides of the House get that our share of the time available? I have

to say, I find that a rather curious question from the honourable

gentleman. Last night, as it happens, I was out of the House

between the two votes. I switched on the BBC Parliament channel and I saw

the honourable gentleman speaking. I turned over to something else. I

switched back. I saw the honourable gentleman still speaking! I switched

over to something else. I switched back and the honourable gentleman

was still speaking. He is the last person to complain about

filibustering in this House. Mrs Theresa Villiers. Mr Speaker,...

Order! Mr Hughes, you seem to be in a state of permanent overexcitement.

Calm yourself, man, take some sort of medication and it will soothe

you. We must hear Mrs Williams. As we prepare in this House to take

back control over our laws on agriculture, was she agree to use

Brexit as an opportunity to strengthen, not weaken the rules

which safeguard the welfare of animals? My right honourable friend

raises an important point which is of concern are many people in this

house and outside. We should be proud in the UK that we have some of

the highest animal welfare standards in the world. Indeed, one of the

highest scores for animal protection in the world. Leaving the EU will

not change this. I can assure my right honourable friend that we are

committed to maintaining and where possible, improving standards of

welfare in the UK while ensuring that our industry is not put at a

competitive disadvantage. Last week, the Russian Duma decriminalised

violence against women and children. I trust the government will

encourage Russia to rethink this aggressive approach which could

realise a domestic violence. Does she agree that ratify the Convention

would send a message to Russia and the world of the priority that

should be placed on ending gender-based violence? I am proud

that in this country, we have strengthened the law on domestic

violence and violence against women and girls. We see this as a

retrograde step by the Russian government, repealing existing

legislation sends out absolutely the wrong message on what is a global

problem. We have joined others in both the Council of Europe and the

OSCE in criticising this decision. Each year, the NHS reportedly spends

?80 million more than it needs to on prescriptions for basic painkillers

that can be sourced much more cheaply. Yet at the same time,

secondary breast cancer patients face being denied life extending

drugs. May I ask my right honourable friend to review this poor

allocation of resources and give breast cancer sufferers the hope

that they deserve? This is obviously an important issue that my

honourable friend has raised. I understand that on the point of

basic medication, it is in the fact that the NHS pays more for basic

painkillers than on the high street. In fact, their prices are lower. In

the case of the drug, it is right that difficult decisions are made on

the basis of clinical evidence. I understand that Nice is undertaking

a comprehensive assessment before making a final recommendation and in

the meantime, the drug is still available to patients. Last month, a

report was published on historical institutional abuse in Northern

Ireland. Given the uncertain political institutions in Northern

Ireland, if the executive is not up and running within a month, will the

Prime Minister commit to implementing a report on historical

institutional abuse in full? This was obviously an important review

and of course we have our inquiry into historic child abuse taking

place in England and Wales. I recognise the point the honourable

gentleman makes about looking ahead to the future. We obviously have the

elections on the 2nd of March. There were then be a period of time for an

executive to be put together. I would encourage all parties to work

to ensure that an executive can be put together in Northern Ireland to

maintain the devolved institutions. I don't want to see the benefits

that have come of progress being undone at this stage. I am sure that

looking ahead, whatever is necessary will be done to ensure that the

findings of that report are taken into account and acted on. The Prime

Minister has been clear in her negotiating objectives as we prepare

to leave the European Union. But with the Prime Minister agree with

me that regions like the West Midlands, part of which I represent,

needs a voice in those negotiations to ensure that we take the

opportunities presented by Brexit to raise investment in education,

skills and infrastructure in the region to ensure that her vision of

a global Britain represents the interests of all the regions of

England as well as the broader United Kingdom? I agree with my

honourable friend. When we negotiate as a United Kingdom, we will be

negotiating for the whole of the United Kingdom and taking account of

all parts of the United Kingdom. We have ambition in terms of making the

Midlands and engine for growth. It is about growing the region's

economy and more jobs. That is why money has been put into funding the

Birmingham rail hub, for example. Of course, the West Midlands will be

getting a strong voice nationally with a directed irate elected mayor

in May. I believe Andy Street will be a very good mayor for the West

Midlands. In welcoming the honourable gentleman back again to

the chamber, I call Mr Ronnie Campbell. Looking pretty slim as

well, Mr Speaker! Mr Speaker, I had five months under the health service

in Newcastle, under the auspices of Professor Griffiths, a marvellous

surgeon. He just about saved my life. But there was a flip side.

That is the best side of the national health and it has been

wonderful, the service I got. But there is a flip side, which is what

we are seeing today. We now have dedicated nurses who are called

corridor nurses. They are in the corridor, looking after patients on

trolleys. That is not the way we want our health service to run. Get

your purse open and give them the money they want. As the Speaker

said, I welcome the honourable gentleman to his place again in this

chamber. And I commend the surgeon and all those who have treated him

in the National Health Service that has enabled him to be here today and

to continue his duties. As we know, there are surgeons, doctors, nurses

and other staff up and down the NHS day in and day out, saving lives. We

should commend them for all that they do. The north-east is a good

example of some of the really good practice that we see in the National

Health Service. I want to see that good practice being spread across

the NHS across the whole country. Dr Sarah Wollaston. I am not alone in

hearing from family 's long settled here in Britain who are deeply

worried that they could be separated after we leave the European Union. I

know that the Prime Minister will not want that to happen, and I

wonder if today, she could reassure all our constituents that those who

were born elsewhere in the European Union but settled here in the UK are

married or in partnerships with British citizens, will have the

right to remain? My honourable friend raises an issue that is of

concern to members across this House. As she says, it is of concern

to many individuals outside of this House who will want reassurance

about their future. I want to be able to give that reassurance, but I

do want to see the same reassurance for UK citizens living in the EU.

But when I trigger article 50, I intend to make it clear that I want

this to be a priority for an early stage of the negotiations so that we

can address this issue and reassure the people concerned. Just two weeks

ago, a 15-year-old left school and was stabbed four times and died.

Three days earlier, a 19-year-old was stabbed to death in Wembley. And

just a few months earlier, two of my young constituents were killed and

the police said it was a case of mistaken identity. They were

22-year-old and a 27-year-old. Next week, I am eating the deputy Mayor

of London to discuss this issue and other issues. The Prime Minister

meet with me, fellow MPs and my borough commander to talk about this

issue and the sycamore project which we would like to see rolled out in

London and beyond? Can I express obviously the

condolences of the whole House to the familiar lanes friends to all of

those she referred to in her question who of been so brutally

stabbed and attacked and suffered from knife attacks she refers to.

Obviously this is an important issue. It is a particularly

important issue for London but it is one that we want to see addressed. A

lot of good work that has been done. I'm in the aware of the sycamore

project she has referred to but would be happy to hear more details

of it. From medics at Kingston Hospital to

researchers at Kingston university, and staff at growing electronics

businesses, Kingston's workforce is enriched by highly-skilled workers

from abroad so. Can my honourable friend refirm after we leave the EU

we'll continue to welcome highly-skilled worksers from the EU

and beyond. I thank my honourable friend for his question. We are very

clear that we dop want to bring the numbers of net migration down but we

also want to ensure that the brightest and best are still welcome

here in the United Kingdom. And that's why I think people want to

see the UK Government making decisions about people who are

coming here from the European Union, but we are very clear about the

importance, as I said in my speech in Lancaster House, there will still

be immigration from the European Union into the UK and we want to

ensure that the brightest and best are able to come here.

Yesterday the Brexit minister claimed that Parliament will have a

meaningful vote on the final EU deal. But account Prime Minister

confirm that under her plans Parliament will either have to

accept what the Government offers or fall back on WTO rules? And in the

event there's no deal, there'll be no vote at all? Isn't the reality

this is just take it or leave it and it is not a meaningful concession,

it's a con? We have been very clear. I said in my Lancaster House speech

that there would be a vote on the final deal. There were a number of

questions on what exactly that meant. We will bring forward o

motion on the final agreement for approval by both Houses of

Parliament and before the final agreement is concluded. We do

expect. I know this has been an issue for a number of honourable and

right honourable members. We do expect and intend that will happen

before the European Parliament debate before it votes and debates

on the final agreement. As the Prime Minister knows,

Trafford Schools are the best in the country. But they are also in one of

the F40 worst-funded areas but perversely the draft funding formula

would actually cut funding to are Trafford Schools not increase T when

she reviews the draft proposals l she look, please for a new formula

that guarantees that all of the worst-funded areas are increased in

funding, not cut? My honourable friend raises, again, an important

point that I know is a matter which is on the minds of a number of

honourable and right honourable friends. As I said earlier, I think

the current system of funding is unfair, it is not transparent. I

think it is out of date. I want to see a session at the that does

support our aspiration to ensure that every child has a good school

place. But, in looking at these reforms I can assure my honourable

friend that we want to get this right. It is why we are consulting

and why we will look very closely at the responses to that consultation.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Npower have announced a 9.8%

increase on dual fuel bills which even the former boss, the former

tsar has described as shocking. EDS announced a 8.4% electricity hike

and it is reported that British Gas is preparing its 11 million customs

tomorrow Merse for a 9% increase. Ofgem has moved to protect those on

prepayment ministers with a cap on energy bills. I ask the Prime

Minister why doesn't she demand similar protection for the majority

of customs Merse who are being ripped off as the CMA has said to

the sum of ?1.4 billion. The Right Honourable lady might have missed

the fact that where we have said that markets aren't working we will

look at the measures needed and the energy market is one we are looking

at at the moment. In the spirit of neutrality. The Prime Minister's

Lancaster House was a call to put the divisions behind us. Does my

right honourable friend agree that this is a vision that everyone in

the House should support, that the more united we are, the stronger our

negotiating position will be. THE SPEAKER: The honourable gentleman

must be concerned. Does she share my surprise that certain members

opposite that disagreeing with their current party leader, can cause

headaches, that some may not have learned.

Can I say to my honourable friend, he is absolutely right that I think

the country wants us, in this House, and everybody in the country, wants

to unite behind the Government's work to ensure that we get the

best-possible deal for the UK, as we leave the European Union, and I

believe that we can get a deal that actually is going to be in the

interests both of the UK and of the European Union. I had hoped that I

was going to be able to welcome the Shadow Home Secretary to the front

bench in time for the vote that's going to take place later tonight.

Perhaps members of the Labour Party are starting to realise the only

real headache is their leader. Thank you, very much, Mr Speaker.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the Director-General of the World

Trade Organisation that if Britain were to leave the EU on WTO terms,

it would cost ?9 billion in lost trade each year? What we want to do

is to ensure that we negotiate a deal with the European Union that

enables us to have the best-possible deal in trading with and operating

within the European Union single market in goods and services. I

believe that's possible, precisely because, as I have just said n

response to my honourable friend the member for Lincoln, I believe that

is a deal that is good, not just for but for the EU as well.

The Prime Minister rightly argues for true parity of esteem between

mental and physical health but parent in York have been sold that

their children must wait up to a year for an assessment by the child,

now adolescent mentalhealth services. As the Department of

Health actually does not currently record these figures, would the

Prime Minister consider making the monitoring fted waiting times a

requirement? My honourable friend has raised an important point. As I

set out a few weeks ago, the Government will be reviewing the

separation of CAMs services across the country because I recognise some

of the concerns that honourable members have made. We want to ensure

that children and young people have easy access at the right time to

mental health because of the evidence that a significant

proportion of mental health problems that arise later in life actually

sta of children and adolescents. We have made more money available to

support transformation in children and young peep's mental health but

the Shadow Health Secretary - sorry, the Health Secretary... -- young

people's mental health. He is in his place as well.

I haute Shadow Health Secretary will agree with me we need to review CAM

services and are giving the right support to children and young

people, adolescents with mental health problems and we'll look at

the issue my honourable friend has raised.

Many honourable members in this House have recently made the long

journey up to West Cumbria for the by-election and we've all

experienced the states of our roads and local railways. It's taken a

by-election for transport ministers to look seriously and show any real

interest in this. Can I is ask, is the Prime Minister planning a trip

herself, so she too can experience why we need proper investment from

this Government into our transport infrastructure in West Cumbria? We

are putting more money, the Government is putting more money

into infrastructure investment across the country but you have to

say to her, the Labour Party had 13 years to improve transport in West

Cumbria and didn't do anything about it. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

recently visited a world class coach-building manufacture based in

my constituent and heard about their exciting plans for the future. With

my right honourable friend join me in emphasising the importance of

skills and manufacturing for our economy, especially as we look to

leave the European Union? Can I thank my honourable friend for

drawing our attention to the example of Woodall Nicholson and say how

pleased we are to hear they have good plans for the future. Can I say

he is right, as we leave the EU we will be doing that from a position

of strength. He is right that skills and manufacturing are an important

of our economy for the future that's why in the industrial strategy we

are looking at how we can develop the excellence we already have in

the UK, for the prosperous, growing economy for the future.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister's right honourable friend,

the member for Rushcliffe last week pointed out that her aspiration to

achieve barrier-free tariff-free trade with the single market,

getting all the benefits but paying none of the cost, was actually akin

to disappearing down the rabbit hole to wonderland. Mr Speaker, I think

she makes a very interesting choice for Alice. But, if she doesn't

manage to achieve that Higham Biggs, would she produce an analysis of

what trading on WTO rules would actually mean for our economy, so we

can make a proper choice? Can I say I commend my right honourable friend

the member for Rushcliffe for the significant service he has given to

this House and his constituents over the years. He and I have have worked

well over a number of years although I have to say when I was Home

Secretary and he was Justice Secretary, I used to say that I

locked him up and he let them out. Can I say to the Right Honourable

lady, as far as this Government is concerned, we believe it is possible

within the two-year time frame to get the agreement, not just for our

withdrawal from the European Union, but also the trade arrangements that

will ensure that we have a strong, strategic partnership with the

European Union in the future. In my right honourable friend's

meeting with Binyamin Netanyahu this week, did she press the only way to

get a lasting peace settlement is for young Palestinians and Israelis

to look Ford to a job, a sharing prosperity and a life without fear,

does she agree the only way to achieve this is face-to-face

negotiations? And will she join the Israeli Prime Minister in pressing

the Prime Minister of the Palestinian authorities for

face-to-face negotiations? My right honourable friend does make a very

important point about this. We continue as a Government a

Conservative Government in the UK to believe that the two-state solution

is a right one. That means a viable Palestinian state but also a safe

and secure Israel. And, of course, it is for the parties to negotiate.

Obviously there are others on the international arena who are doing

their work to facilitate an agreement in the Middle East. But,

ultimately it is for the two parties to agree a way forward. THE SPEAKER:

Order. Ten minute rule motion. Liz

Saville-Roberts. I beg to move that leave be given for me to bring in a

bill, to make provision for the circumstances in which the sexual

history of a victim of rate or attempted rape may be given into a

trial. To extend the range of serious offences which may be

referred to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue leniency of a

sentence. To amend the requirements for ground rules hearings, to make

provision for the issuing in certain circumstances of guidance on

safeguarding to schools, to make provision for training about serious

sexual offences, to place a duty on the Secretary of State to provide

guidelines for the courts in dealing with cases of serious sexual

offences, to require the Secretary of State to report annually on the

operation of the act and for connected purposes.

I will not take ten minutes of the House's time. I hope ministers will

agree to meet with me and others to discuss how matters in this bill

could be resolved. The bill was drafted with the assistance of the

police and victims support groups. There has been wide consultation.

There has been a dossier of harrowing experiences from victims.

They face the possibility of being humiliated and their credibility

being undermined by defence lawyers asking questions about sexual

partners, clothing and appearance. The law protects victims in

Australia, Canada and most of the United States. This rape shield

ensures that previous sexual history is not used in court. The evidence

of April is curious woman is mythically believed to be less

credible by some. This affects confidence to come forward. The

Police Commissioner for Northumbria has said that fear that complainants

would be accused of sexual behaviour with other men has historically been

a major deterrent in what men reporting rape. Failure to report is

compelled by failure to prosecute. Just 2689, or a, resulted in

convictions. 90% of rape victims are women, 10% are male. In court, one

woman faced questions she was promiscuous. Emma was followed by a

stranger who tried to rape her. Off-duty police officers heard her

screams. The trial fixated on why she chose to wear a red dress that

evening. Questioning about prior sexual conduct has been recorded.

Applications were made on the morning of the trial in many cases.

The humiliation of victims of sexual assault by irrelevant matters cannot

be allowed to continue. The present law was intended to do this, but it

is no longer serving its original purpose. The second major step

brought forward by this bill will be to stop the disclosure of the name

of the victim of rape or attempted rape to an alleged perpetrator by

the police. She was terrified her attacker would find her. She changed

her name. Another victim said, I am scared every day that he might find

me. I would have been much safer had I not reported. Myra was told by the

police that the disclosure of names is left to officer discretion. This

law will mean that names are not disclosed unless a judge agrees. It

follows a referral to voice her victims on Christmas Eve. A teenage

girl was raped by a fellow student at a party. He was arrested and

bailed with agreement of no content. On returning to school, she was

placed in the same class as the attacker. The bill allows the

Attorney-General to introduce safeguards for rape victims and to

provide guidance for criminal Justice star. These reforms will

have limited impact unless accompanied by proper cleaning. The

Secretary of State will provide a strategy for high-quality training

and advice for all relevant star. The provisions of this bill are

based on the distressing experience of victims of serious sexual crimes.

These measures, I hope, will help restore a victims faith in the

criminal justice system and allow the criminal justice system to

function more effectively. Who could argue that victims of rape should be

re-victimised by the very system through which they seek redress. I

commend this bill to the House. The question is if the honourable member

has leave to bring in the Bill. As many were of the opinion say I. The

eyes mac have it. Who will prepare and bring in the Bill? Graham Allen,

Carolyn Harris, Alison shoeless, Margaret Ritchie, Tim Loughton,

Alistair Carmichael and myself. Liz Saville Roberts.

Second reading, what day? 24 March 2017.

clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. European Union

notification of withdrawal bill, committee. Order!

Order. European Union notification of withdrawal bill. We begin with

the new clause two, for consideration not only... Point of

order. I spent a lot of time last night studying the amendments. I

have to confess to be concerned as the admissibility of a large number

of them. It's my understanding that amendments are not admissible to our

bill if they are vague or unintelligible without further

amendment. For example, I'd like to bring to your attention some of the

primary amendments to this debate. At the moment, MC2 appears to be

very vague. It implies the Prime Minister shall give some kind of

undertaking to have regard to the public interest... Order. I

understand the point of the honourable gentleman is making. But

the matter is that he is raising is a matter for debate. The fact is

that some new clauses and amendments would have been tabled have been

considered to be in order and have been selected for debate. Some are

not in order and I therefore ineligible for selection, for

debate. It is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. I

can assure the honourable gentleman though I have no obligation sold to

do, that the matter has been very carefully considered. New clause to

is perfectly in order. The honourable gentleman may well

disagree with the points which are raised in new clause to. Indeed, I

would expect him to. And I would expect him to make his disagreement

known to the House in due course. But for the moment I can assure the

honourable gentleman and a house that new clause to is perfectly in

order and it will be debated. Point of order? I'm sure the honourable

gentleman would not wish to question the judgment of the chair. I'm just

asking for an explanation... The honourable gentleman will resume his

seat, please. I thank the honourable members. I'm perfectly capable of

dealing with the matter. It is not in order for the honourable

gentleman to ask for an explanation. That would be questioning the

judgment of the chair. A matter with which... A matter up with which I

should not put. We will debate new clause two, which will now be moved

by Mr Paul Blomfield. These new clauses have been judged

to be in order. Over the last two days, we have had a series of

important debates, primarily on the process that we face over a long

period ahead of us know. Today, we move on to amendments on the

substance of the government's negotiations. The debate on process

was important precisely because it is about enabling the people of this

country through this elected parliament to hold the government to

account on the issues that matter to them. Jobs, conditions under which

our businesses operate, how we keep our country safe and secure. How we

protect the environment for future generations. How we ensure we remain

at the cutting edge of science and research. And that we have an

economy that enables us to fund our NHS and services so vital for social

fabric. In the foreword to the White Paper, the Prime Minister claims

that the country is coming together. But we are not there yet. Frankly,

some are talking about those with a different opinion as attempting to

prevent the will of the British people. That does not help. This new

clause concerns the 48% and also many of the 52%. Those who voted to

come out but did not vote to lose out. It is a man festival for the

100%. -- a manifesto. By having trading arrangements with the

European Union for goods and services that are free of tariff. On

the side of the House, we have been clear that in these negotiations it

is the economy and jobs that should come first. The government has

decided otherwise. And is taking a reckless gamble with People's jobs

and living standards, walking away from the single market and the

customs union. Thank you. I'm grateful to him for giving way. He

is putting his case clearly. It is Labour's position that the economy

is at the heart of the negotiations and if, for instance, you couldn't

get rid of free movement, so be it, because the economy is more

important? That's not what I said. What I said was the economy is at

the heart of our negotiations and that the advantages of the single

market, as the Prime Minister pointed out before 23 June, are

significant. Our view is that we should have reasonable management of

migration through the application of fair rules. And grateful to him.

Does he accept that it is completely agreed on all sides of this House

that we want maximum possible access to the single market for our

exporters and we will offer them maximum possible access to our

market? Is he further accent that we don't need an argument about it, but

the answer to whether we get that or most favoured nation WTO lies in the

hands of the other 27 states and not in the hands of this Parliament?

The honourable member is wrong, not for the first time, we have made it

clear that the economy comes first, the Prime Minister has said that her

red lines of a court of justice and immigration. Let me move on to

issues on immigration. I will. I thank my honourable friend for

giving way, I know he takes a big interest in science and technology

in the universities, will he agree with me that it is very important

for Coventry and the West Midlands economy that we get agreement on

this in relation to the single market and government's only

guaranteed resources up to 2020 should we pull out? I do indeed

think that is a very important point, the honourable member will

have noted it is one of the points highlighted in new clause two, I

will... No... I will... Well, as it is the right honourable member, I

will. I don't wish to delay him, but I listened very carefully to what

the honourable gentleman said concerning his new clause. He said

that when pressed, it was a Labour Party's view that control of

migration was an important issue, sustainable in whatever arrangements

there are, but I note from this what is missing from this new clause is

any reference whatsoever to that being an important matter. Whether

it is as important as the economy or of secondary importance, he knows

that when the balance of negotiation comes down, it remains an important

issue. What is his position, why has he left out the issue of migration

control from this to make a balanced new clause, which otherwise makes no

sense? The right honourable member is misrepresenting my observations,

but I know that the Leave campaign were strongly supportive of

alternative facts...! Can I move on specifically... Can I move on to the

issue that he raises, of... As it's you. This really is rather

important, could he confirm that the Labour Party no longer supports the

principle of free movement? Yes, or no? We have said time and again that

we believe in the reasonable management of migration through the

application of fair rules. I will come to the specific issue if

honourable and right honourable members will give me an opportunity.

I probably have been a little bit unbalanced, so I should give way to

somebody on my own site. I'm very grateful to my friend, would he

confirm the easiest way to cut migration would be to crash the

economy? LAUGHTER My honourable friend should wait and

hear what I am about to say on the issue of migration. I think I should

make some progress, I will not give way, I am conscious there is a

number of amendments and a number of people who would like to speak.

Certainly on this site we accept the concerns of migration were a

significant factor in the referendum. Probably a critical

factor. Leave campaign is, not paying attention at the moment,

talked it up relentlessly... Still not listening... Leave campaign is

talked of migration relentlessly, as has the Prime Minister, both in this

and in her previous job. Creating huge expectations. Expectations

which the White Paper then begins to talk down. On this central issue,

the Home Secretary told the home affairs select committee last week

that she had not been consulted on this part of the White Paper. One of

the main red lines defining the government's approach and the

minister responsible was not consulted, absolutely extraordinary.

For months, echoing the Leave campaign, the government has talked

about control, but where it has had control over non-EU migration for

six years, the White Paper reveals the real facts: no significant

change since 2010. I will. I'm grateful to him for giving way,

would he accept that tree movement has massively benefited our country,

economically and socially, governments may well have failed to

ensure that those benefits have been shared equally, we should not be

sacrificing our economy to anti-immigration ideology, and

securing the free movement of people should be a priority for

negotiations. The White Paper makes the point about the benefits of

migration. No, I will make... I will... I will make some progress. I

think the right honourable member has had more than his fair share of

speaking time in this debate. Let me continue, non-EU migration, there

has been no real change since 2010, for good reasons, and when the

government starts to desegregate the AA numbers, what will they find?

Doctors, nurses, academics, care workers, students. -- EA. Those

bringing key skills to business and industry and then in lower skilled

jobs, ministers have already made it clear, for example, to employers

that agricultural workers will be still free to come. I will make some

progress. The only real way of substantially reducing numbers is,

as my honourable friend pointed out, to crash the economy, it will be the

effect of the government's negotiations but assuming that is

not their plans, then... Not at this moment, in a moment... They now need

to come clean with the British people, as the right honourable

member for Meriden argued last week, and the right honourable member for

Pembrokeshire argued over the weekend, they need to come clean

with the British people on this red line, what is their plan? If taking

control of immigration is what is defining this government's approach

to "Brexit", the minister, in his closing remarks, needs to make clear

what are the government's intentions? I think the Shadow

Minister for giving way, will he agree with me that both discussions

by UK trade delegations to China and to India has made it clear that any

future trade deal with those countries will almost certainly

involve a relaxation of the current regime, and therefore, all we are

doing is displacing migration, not cutting it down? My honourable

friend is absolutely right, I think the Prime Minister was shocked to

discover, when she went to India, seeking a trade deal, that one of

the first things they want to put on the table was access to our labour

markets and access for students. He is also right to cite other

countries that he missed off the list, Australia, much heralded as a

future trade deal, who also want to make the movement of people part of

any settlement. I'm grateful for giving way, making an important

point about the value of migrant workers and others who come here.

Does he recognise, in oral areas in particular, local jobs are also Jean

anchored by the ability of people to come in, public services and local

businesses, the jobs of the indigenous population depend upon

the freedom of movement which is such an important part of single

market membership. -- local jobs also anchored by the ability for

people to come in. Is one of the reasons why the government White

Paper is so much more nuanced and caveat it and realistic than some of

the rhetoric that we have seen. As I said, I think the right honourable

member has had lots of time during this debate. SHOUTING

And I want to move on to a different topic, and I'm sure that he will be

wanting to get in later. Order, order. He rightly wishes to speed up

his introduction of the new clause, the whole house will be pleased

about when we come to the end of the debate and they have not had a

chance to speak. INAUDIBLE LAUGHTER

Our approach is different, to put the economy and the jobs of the

British people first and get the right trading relationship with the,

there may be lots of graphs in the White Paper but little clarity in

their execution. The Secretary of State for exiting the European Union

was much clearer a couple of years -- a couple of weeks ago, when he

told the house, " what we have come up with is the idea of a free-trade

agreement and and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver

the exact same benefits as we have all stopped I'm delighted that he

has joined us at this point. He is promising us the exact same benefits

as we have inside the single market, that is a benchmark that he has set

for these negotiations, and it is a benchmark against which we will

measure his success. And so to help in a very positive and collaborative

way, to help Secretary of State, we have tried to embed that into

paragraph B of New Clause two because livelihoods depend upon it.

Does my honourable friend agree with me that tried to get the same access

to the single market without paying any of the costs is like

disappearing down the rabbit hole to Alice's wonderland, and it is

important that we have an assessment of what WTO rules would cost if we

had to fall back on those? Good idea! My honourable friend makes an

important point, precisely why we have been pushing for proper

economic assessments and I acknowledge that it is an ambitious

target for the negotiations full of but it is the one that the Secretary

of State has set and the one against which his performance will be

measured. It's all very well to speculate on trade deals that might

or might not come to pass, while the White Paper tells us that the United

States are interested in an early trade agreement with the UK, there

is no indication of how America's first protectionism is going to give

better market access for UK manufactured goods. With this

uncertainty, the government needs to do all that it can to secure the

jobs that depend upon trading with our biggest and our closest partner,

the European Union. Listening to his remarks very

carefully, why does he think the European Union would not be seeking

a free-trade arrangement with the United Kingdom given the balance of

trade we have with the EU? The trade agreement we are seeking is one that

I am sure they will be interested in securing, whether they can secure it

on the terms, the ambitious terms the secretary of State has set

himself is the question to be looked at all stop can I... No, I have

already made it clear... The right honourable member has had plenty of

floor time. Can I then press on... In terms of... In terms of the trade

deal, it really did not help for the Prime Minister to threaten our

friends and neighbours that if she did not get her way, she would turn

this country into an offshore tax haven. Well... Honourable members

opposite may not like it but that was the very clear threat. It is not

a threat against the European Union, it is a threat against the British

people, because those voting to leave the EU did so on the

understanding that the NHS was going to receive more money. That is not

possible if we slash taxes, and this house should not allow it, which is

the purpose of the new clause, seven. I'm going to make some

progress, I am minded of the comments made by misses Lang. This

is the purpose of new clause seven, it should command support across the

house because this government has been working with partners in the

OECD on efforts to avoid a race to the bottom on corporation tax. --

Mrs Laing. That is what this clause in doses. In avoiding that race to

the bottom, new clause two would commit the government to maintaining

all existing social economic consumer and workers' rights, as

well as continuing to collaborate upon environmental protection. The

government has paid lip service to these things but I think that they

might understand people's scepticism over their intentions, the White

Paper boast of increasing enforcement budgets for the national

minimum wage compliance, but it fails to mention the appalling low

numbers of prosecutions for nonpayment of the national minimum

wage, or rice of youths in the care sector, of which the government is

aware but has failed to act. -- of abuse in the care sector.

What is it about the impact of our carbon emissions that is specific?

So specific that addressing it cannot better be done through

continued collaboration with the European Union? I've been listening

with great interest for 20 minutes. Could he tell the House, what is

what he is saying got to do with Article 50? I guess the right

honourable member had spotted that triggering Article 50 will signal

our departure from the European Union. And the implications of that

put at risk the many benefits... The former Chief Whip knows better than

anyone how business is conducted in the size. He asks me to tell the

House. There is no need. That will clearly have implications for the

many environmental, employment and consumer rights that have been one

of the last 42 years. Does he not agree that the government which has

been dragged to court on three occasions for failing on air quality

and is negotiating behind the scenes to try to drop standards, it is

really important we try to talk about environmental standards? I do

indeed. That's why it is embedded within our new clause to. I will try

to make some progress. New clause two also seeks to make progress in

preventing serious and organised crime. The Prime Minister talks

about this, but will she commit? Let me take one example. The basis of

new clause 192. Tucked away in the explanatory notes is the revelation

that it will trigger our exit from the European atomic energy agency.

I'm pretty confident that the British people on 23 June did not

vote against our leading role in nuclear energy safety and research.

It certainly wasn't on the ballot paper. It is a distinct treaty. And

it would fly in the face of common sense to throw away membership for

an organisation which brings such unequivocal benefit. Get the White

Paper is as ambiguous as the Secretary of State was last week on

the government's intention. Talking simply of leaving your tone. I don't

know whether he yesterday attended the all-party Parliamentary group on

medical research. He will know it was made clear that we need to

maintain the closest possible ties with the EU regarding funding and

free movement of people. Does he not agree the government need to listen

if we are to preserve our wonderful scientific research base in this

country. I was at a meeting of medical research charities on

Monday, at which they made precisely that point. And indeed ensuring that

we had the right relationship starting ideally with membership of

the European medicines agency. Thank you. He has been generous. He

probably knows I have the colour fusion Centre in my constituency,

which is very concerned about this issue. I have had conversations with

them. The conversations said that the amendments that are in this bill

are not helpful. That is their decision on this. They are much

better dealing with ministers and putting pressure on the Treasury to

achieve their objectives. I thank the honourable member for his point.

But I think a very effective way of putting pressure to save the jet

centre that he is referring to, which is a hugely important

facility, is bypassing amendment -- new clause 192. The Minister is

making an important point. These hugely important research projects

in nuclear have long leading ties. If we are to trigger knotting to

leave the European Union, one of the concerns is no agreement will be put

in place at the end of the two years. Does he agree with me that

there should be a transitional arrangement? He makes an important

point and I agree. I would press ministers to give greater clarity on

their intentions. As I say, the Secretary of State so far has been

ambiguous. I think I should respond to the appeal that we make some

progress. It has been suggested that the government's reservations about

Euroton is because the Court of justice of the EU is the regulatory

body for the treaty. If that is the case, then obsessional opposition to

the Court of justice leads them to one to tear up an organisation which

supports a critical industry. Membership which, as the honourable

member has pointed out, led us to hosting the biggest nuclear fusion

programme in the world. And going to make some progress. And on which

nuclear safety is important. I will finish this point. Before the

Secretary of State leaves, I think it would be helpful for the

government to explain their intentions. The people in this

country deserve to know on Euroton. People voting in Copeland in a

couple of weeks will want to know, their jobs are on the line. I will

give the Secretary of State or indeed the Minister the opportunity

to intervene to give an an ambiguous statement it is the government's

intention to remain in Euroton. I was providing the opportunity to

give way to those who can make a useful commitment. Otherwise, I

think their silence says everything. There clearly is much more to be

said about our future relationship. There are many poor people who wish

to see it and done many more amendments. I will draw my remarks

to a clause. Order. The House must allow the shadow minister to draw

his remarks to a close or no one else will have an opportunity to

speak and it will not be my fault. I will draw my remarks to a close with

a simple wish. If we are to bring people together around plans that

address the concerns of the 100%, our new clause is provide a basis

for doing so. And supporting them would be a good first step. The

question is that new clause two be read a second time. Mr John Redwood.

I find myself in agreement with new clause two. I think it makes

perfectly sensible statements about what our negotiating aims should be.

I think it is a statement of the White Paper policy. We wish to

maintain a strong and growing economy, as we have done ever since

the Brexit fault. Of course we want to maintain peace in Northern

Ireland, and have excellent trading agreements with those in Europe. Of

course we want to have lots of cooperative activity with European

states. And of course we wish to maintain the important rights and

legal protections which are in European law. The government has

made it crystal clear in the White Paper and in many statements and

answers to questions and debates from the front bench that all those

things are fundamental to the negotiating aims of the government.

I just need to explain why, having exciting them with my agreement, I

will not vote in favour of it. As it is agreed, I will agree with the

front bench. Although the words did not explicitly say this is what has

to be delivered, if it's embedded in legislation, the indication is that

all these things have to be delivered and some of them are not

in the gift of this government or this Parliament. I return to this

point that the opposition never seems to grasp. We are all united in

the aims of our trade being tariff free, but it will be decided by the

other 27, not by this Parliament or ministers. Given that the list in

new clause two does indeed exactly match some of the things in White

Paper, so therefore is pointless because they are all covered in a

White Paper, isn't it interesting that the two areas it doesn't

mention our immigration and strengthening the United Kingdom. I

think those missions are very significant. A powerful point. I

would add others. It's a shame it doesn't talk about fishing. It

doesn't talk about immigration policy. We still don't seem to

understand that you have to remove the jurisdiction of the European

Court of Justice if this Parliament is in future going to be free to

have a fishing policy that helps restore the fishing grounds of

Scotland and England, that has a policy that makes sense to have some

limit on the numbers of people coming to this country. The wish

list is encapsulated in two words. Single market. He hasn't been

listening to what I been saying. The whole point about the single market

is it does not allow you to have a sensible fishing policy or borders

policy. I wonder if the honourable gentleman would like to reconsider

what he has just said. He just said the single market does not allow you

to have a sensible fishing policy. But Norway has such a policy, as is

mentioned in this document, Scotland's place in Europe. What we

want, and I think what is agreed across this House, even by some

members of the SNP, is we want maximum tariff free barrier free

access to their internal market, but it is not on offer from the other 27

for us to stay in the single market but not comply with all the other

things we have to comply with as a member of the EU. There is no

separate think all the single market. It's a series of laws going

over all sorts of boundaries and barriers. If you withdraw from the

EU, you withdraw from the single market. His example was on fishing

policy. Does he agree as a point of fact that normally is in the single

market but pursues its own independent fishing policy? Yes or

no? Normally decided to sacrifice control over borders in order to get

certain other things from a different kind of relationship from

the EU, but we don't wish to join the EEA because we don't wish to

sacrifice control over our borders. Norway was part of the Nordic free

movement area with Sweden, Finland and Denmark way before the European

Union was even invented, the honourable gentleman is absolutely

wrong! Now it is far bigger than that, that was part of their deal,

they have to pay a lot of money in, which rarely we do not wish to pay,

why would we want to do that? My right honourable friend, does he

agree with me that if members opposite are really serious about

the flourishing of the economy, 80% of which is services, they should

accept that we need to be able to do trade deals on services and that

means we need to leave the day, so we can negotiate about regulation.

-- EEA. That is quite right, they nor the rest of the whole of the

world, we have a profitable balanced trade with the rest of the world,

the often end in surplus with the rest of the world, massive deficit

on goods with the EU alone, and there is much more scope for road in

our trade with the rest of the world than there is with the EU, partly

because the rest of the world is growing much faster overall, and

partly because we have a chance to have a much bigger proportion of the

market there, then we carry me have, obviously right now we have advanced

trade with EE you, which is probably in decline because of the obvious

economic problems in the euro area. -- EU. Does he know that while the

Shadow Minister made known mention of the importance of controlling

immigration, in use new clause two, there is mention of deserving peace

in Northern Ireland though he never mentions one. Does the member not

accept that this is perhaps because he understands that Brexit has no

implications for peace in Northern Ireland, it is not a cause for

increased terrorism and indeed the terrorists never fought to stay in

the EU, they fought to get out of Britain. The honourable gentleman

has made his own point, we always Northern Ireland well. There is

nothing on the face of new clause to that is remotely objectionable, as

an objective for the country, in the forthcoming negotiations, to either

leave is all remain as, but does he accept that it is desirable to have

tariff free access to the single market, it is not possible to have

access to any market if you don't accept and is to the regulations in

that market, otherwise it regulates barriers, and you need to have some

dispute procedure. If you start rejecting the European court of

justice and saying all the regulations have got to be British

regulations, and we are free to alter them when we feel like it, you

are actually not pursuing the objectives in new clause two, to

which he expresses otherwise complete agreement. Of course when

you enter free-trade agreement or other trade arrangement, there is a

dispute resolution procedure, a clear one in the WTO, the way that I

see it happening, we will register the best deal we can get with the EU

under our WTO membership and it will be governed by normal WTO resolution

procedures, which we have no problem with. The problem with the EEC J is

it presumes to strike down the wishes of the British people and

good statute made by this House of Commons over a wide range of issues,

which means we are no longer sovereign all of the time we are in

it. He has argued that membership of the EU inhibits our ability to train

with the expanding economies of the rest of the world. Could he explain

if this is so, why Germany exports almost four times as much as we do

to China, and exceeds our exports to both India and Brazil, the other

fast-growing economies, and France also exports more to China and

Brazil than we do? What is it that they do within the EU that we will

do when we come out? It is quite of years Germany will export more at

the early stages of development in an emerging market economy because

they tend to export capital equipment of the kind you need to

industrialise, which is what China bought in the last decade, now China

is a much richer country, she is going on to have massive expansion

of services and that is where we have an advantage, with the right

kind of arrangement with China we can accelerate growth of our